About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
steve jobs was really bringing apple to the forefront -- >> a happening place. >> it is. it's where things happen. that's why we're here, steve rattner. >> washington is the place. with us on set, economic analyst steve rattner. also political editor and white house correspondent for the huffington post, sam stein. andrea mitchell. and in new york, msnbc contributor, mike barnicle. and the co-anchor of "street signs," brian sullivan. we've got a lot to talk about, mike barnicle, but i saw a headline on the front page of "usa today," a tease that is very intriguing, and that is one of the greatest players in major league baseball trying to get his worth right now. and if i were a major league team, i would pass on josh hamilton in a new york second because the guy phoned it in when his team needed him the most. there's an attitude problem. and yet he could be such a huge payoff. are the red sox looking at josh hamilton? >> i think any team that's looking at hamilton is looking at no longer than three years with him because of the things you just mentioned. >> he, of course, had an ad
? >> steve, your question -- >> i'm and freeload, by the way. >> that by the way is how the chinese would describe any relationship between japan and america. the interesting aspect of all these conflicts is that as india and china and india and china have a proximate geographically, but we've never been neighbors. >> right. >> in order to be neighbors you either have to love each other or hate each other. we have done neither. in fact, in 1962 during the first strategic conflict, between these two, you have to understand, it's hard to understand why we are not neighbors. [inaudible] in terms of inaccessible. but the positions, the lines, the strategies, the lines, what would they resonate to? the positions that are taken by postcolonial nations is that we will not be bound by decisions made by colonial powers. one, or in china's case, that we had to abandon our national positions. and now that we are strong, we need to resurrect them. right or wrong is not, that is very little to do with national positions. now, the words that were there in the title of today's discussion, confusion, i c
. joining us is steve clemmons. he writes at the washington note and atlantic magazine. steve is also a former policy adviser for new mexico senator jeff bingaman. thank you for being here. >> great to be with you rachel. >> am i being naive to think this was going to pass? >> a lot of people thought it was going to pass. of all the treaties, this would be the easiest to pass. there were other treaties pending. this is about people in need and it didn't. this is a branch of the gop that did you want represent all republicans, but it's the obnoxious nationalist wing that really resents any international deal making. there's a lot of worry not just about people with with disabilities, but all the other trea treaties that position the united states and show that it can be the primary sculptor of global affairs, and we're defecting from that as of today's vote. >> so 126 countries ratifying this, but us, not ratifying it. particularly when it's modelled on our law. that takes us out of a global leadership role? >> it leaves a void that the united states is walking away from the responsibi
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)